Forums

Obama loses again. Topic

If the OA knew it was a terrorist attack and intentionally denied it, it's a scandal. Simply because many warning signs were ignored and the timing of the denial. Just saying "It's not a scandal" doesn't make it so.

As the most "historic" president in my life, I was sort of hoping it wouldn't be "business as usual" in Washington with him. He's a smart man. It seems that he wouldn't want his legacy to be "Just another politician".

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):Because it is a non-story. How does the admission of a lie told after the fact bring any closure?

It may or may not bring closure, but when you are caught in a lie you have two options: A) Come clean and take your lumps, which shows at least some level of conscience, or B) double down on your deceit and shout stuff like " What difference, at this point, does it make"? (Which is a Hillary quote from the Senate hearings that is eerily similar to your apathetic replies yesterday).

I suppose the IRS story isn't scandalous either, nor the DOJ/AP story?

Please amuse us all and explain how all three stories are "non issues and "right wing smoke"

Way to take a quote out of context. You could make a point but instead choose to be a fool.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/13/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):Let's not play dumb. The issue is that it happened in the middle of an election. True or not, failing to thwart a terrorist attack makes a president look soft on defense. A protest gone wrong is a horrible, unforeseeable accident. One is more palatable for the electorate, logical or not. By itself, Benghazi is a borderline non-story to me, outside of the lack of security preparation. Taken with the recent revelations that, in that same election year, the IRS specifically targeted Republican groups for additional scrutiny AND the Justice Department had wire taps on AP phone lines, it seems like we can believe one of three things:

1) The administration used undue influence in an effort to win an election

2) The administration is inept, in that it has no idea what is going on in its own Cabinet departments

3) The administration suffered a series of unfortunate incidents, compounded by uncommonly bad judgment, at a horribly inopportune time

I could lean towards 3 on the Benghazi "cover-up" alone. Taken as a whole, I'm finding it hard to lean that way right now. And it's hard to be happy with choices 1 or 2.

The difference, at this point (and at that one) that it makes is, there never was a protest.
So how does this non-event become the story of record that the WH went with a full five days later?

In November Carney claimed (in reference to the numerous changes and revisions made to the "official report" they were going to release) they made a "single change", "changing the word Consulate to Diplomatic Facility"

This is known to be false, and that they removed any reference to previous warnings about security threats and the fact that they were pretty certain Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Yet as recently as Friday, Carney doubled down on it, calling it one "stylistic change", which again is already known to be false.

In fact, Victoria Nuland specifically said (concerning the al-Qaeda references) "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

In light of the latest two scandals, it appears to show a pattern of dishonesty and at the very least ineptness of the CIC to have any idea what is going on.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/15/2013 9:17:00 AM (view original):And for all the apologists and funny guys out there:

The difference, at this point (and at that one) that it makes is, there never was a protest.
So how does this non-event become the story of record that the WH went with a full five days later?

In November Carney claimed (in reference to the numerous changes and revisions made to the "official report" they were going to release) they made a "single change", "changing the word Consulate to Diplomatic Facility"

This is known to be false, and that they removed any reference to previous warnings about security threats and the fact that they were pretty certain Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Yet as recently as Friday, Carney doubled down on it, calling it one "stylistic change", which again is already known to be false.

In fact, Victoria Nuland specifically said (concerning the al-Qaeda references) "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

In light of the latest two scandals, it appears to show a pattern of dishonesty and at the very least ineptness of the CIC to have any idea what is going on.

Here's my point--the lie was inconsequential. They weren't covering up that the attack could have been prevented or covering up the deaths or some sort of CIA operation. They lied for purely political gain, which isn't good but considering the fact that every administration for 200 years has lied for political gain, it isn't a scandal.